jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "angela (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (JCR-1360) Parsing built-in CND and XML nodetypes does not result in equal nt-definitions
Date Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:27:09 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1360?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12566182#action_12566182

angela commented on JCR-1360:

> i'd therefore suggest to change the spec wording

fine. i will open an jsr 283 issue for that.

> therefore i'd suggest to just change the spec wording and 
> leave  the implementation as is. 

means: from your point of view the test should not compare the NodeTypeDefinitions
but rather compare the resulting Nodetypes, right?

hm. to me it seems we are having multiple levels of defaulting and lazy assumptions.
let me check again, what makes me feel uneasy with that :).... more to come ;)


> Parsing built-in CND and XML nodetypes does not result in equal nt-definitions
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: JCR-1360
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-1360
>             Project: Jackrabbit
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: jackrabbit-core
>            Reporter: angela
>            Priority: Trivial
>         Attachments: 1360.patch
> i created a test in order to make sure builtin-nodetypes.xml and builtin-nodetypes.cnd
provide the same definitions (actually i only wanted to test my own changes).
> it reveals that the existing built-in NodeTypeDefinitions are not equal due to the following
> - in the xml-format nt:base is always specified if no other super type extends from nt:base
> - in the cnd notation the nt:base is omitted (see below for quote from appendix of jsr
283) even if other super type(s) are
>   defined and none of them extends from nt:base.
> this affects the following nodetypes (all extending from mix:referenceable only):
> nt:versionHistory
> nt:version
> nt:frozenNode
> nt:resource
> quote from public-review of jsr 283:
> " Supertypes [...]
> After the node type name comes the optional list of supertypes. If this element is not
present and the node type is not a mixin (see Options), then a supertype of nt:base
is assumed."
> I'm not totally sure, if according to the quote above the built-in cnd-definitions are
valid at all. since it states, that the nt:base is assumed if no other super type is defined.
In the case of the node types above, mix:referenceable is defined to be the only super type,
which is not totally true... the non-mixin types are always sub types of nt:base.
> In either case: From my understanding the node types resulting from parsing the xml and
the cnd file should be equal.
> If the definitions are valid, we may need to adjust the CompactNodeTypeDefReader.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

View raw message